PMLA 110( \9i�)
Lauren Berlant and Michael 1Varner
Guest Column
What Does Queer Theory Teach Us
about X?
LAUREN BERLANT, professor
of English at the University of
Chicago, is the author ofThe
Anatomy of National Fantasy:
Hawthorne,Utopia,and Every­
day Life (U of Chicago P, l99i)
and of essays on citizenship,
sexuality, identity, and the pub­
lic sphere. She is a coeditor
of Critical Inquiry and Public .
Culture. MICHAEL WARNER,
associate professor of English·
at Rutgers University, New
.
Brunswick, is. the author of Let­
ters of the Republic; Publi�ac
tion and the Pubiic Sphere in.
Eighteenth"Centilry Amer ica
(Harvard UP, 1990), editor of
Fear of a Queer Planet: Queer
Politics and SocifLl Theory (u
of Minnesota P, 1993), pnd
coeditor of The Origins of Lit­
entry Studies in America (Rout­
ledge,1988) and ofThe English
Literatures of America (Rout­
ledge, /996).
W
. .
. .
ORD OF NEW intellectual dovolopment' tenW. io ttavel indi­
ectly,like gossip. Soon,more and more people feel the need
to know what the reai story is: they want manifestos,bibliographies,expla­
nations. When a journal does a �p�cial issue or commissions an editorial
coinment,it is often responding to this need.
We have been invited to pin the queer thed iy tail on the donkey. But here
we cannot but stay and make a pause,and stand half amazed at this poor
donkey's present condition. Queer theory has already incited a vast labor of
metacommentary,& _virtual industry: special issues,sections of journals,om­
nibus reviews, anthologi�s,and dictionary entries. Yet the term itself is less
than five years old. Why do people feel the need to introduce,anatomize,
and theorize something that can b!!fely be said yet to exist?
The critical mass of queer work is.more a matter of perception than of
volume. Queer is hot. This perception arises partly from the distortions of
the star system,which allows a small number of naines to stand in for an
evolving culture. Most practitioners of the new queer commentary are not
·faculty members but graduate students. The association with the star sys­
tem and with graduate students makes this work the object of envy,resent­
ment,.and suspicion. As often happens,what makes some people queasy
others call sexy.
In our view,it is not useful to consider queer theory a thing; especially one
dignified by capital letters. We wonder whether queer commentary might
not more accurately describe the things linked by the rubric,most of which
are not theory. The metadiscoilrse of "queer theory" intends an academic
object, but queer commentai:y has vital precedents and collaborations in aes­
thetic genres and journalism. It cannot be assimilated to a single discourse,
let alone a propositional program. Certainly,recent years have seen much
queer criticism that tried to think through theoretical problems rigorously,
343
 344 Guest Column

often by way of psychoanalysis. But the notion that this work belonged to
"queer theory" arose after 1990, when AIDS 'afidqueer activism provoked
intellectuals to see themselves as bringing a queerer world into being. Nar�
rating the emergence of queer theory was a way to legithnate many exper­
iments, relatively fe� of which stilllooked like theory in the sense of
rigorous, abstract,·metadistiplinary debate.
We do not wish to use this editorial to define, purify, puncture, sanitize, or
otherwise entail the emerging queer commentary. Nor are we looking to fi:k
.
our seal of approval or disapproval on anybody's claim to queerness. We
would like to cultivate a rigorous· and intellectually generous critical culture
without narrowing its field. We want to prevent the reduction of queer the­
ory to a specialty or a metatheory.
.
.! We also want to frustrate the already audible assertions that queer theory
has only academic-which is to say, dead-politics. Begimiings take a long
time, and uneven developments are often experienced as premature deaths, a
subject on which queer work is sadly expert. Because almost everything that
can be called queer theory· has been n1dically anticipatory, trying to bring a
.
world into being, any effort to summarize it now will be violently partial.
Is this editoriai corllm.ent; then; queer theory? After all, PMLA is not a
'queer space in any sense. We are not proposing to queer PMLA, and we
could not perform such a change by willing it. Nor can we act as native in­
formants, telling a presumptively straight assembly of colleagues some-
thing about whatqueers are; do, and think. . . .

What follows Is a kind of anti-encyclopedia entry: queer theory is not

the theory ofanything in particular; and has no precise bibliographic shape.
. We can say that queer commentary has been animated by a sense of be­
longing to a· discourse world that only partly exists yet. This work aspires to
create publics, publics that can afford sex and intimacy in·sustained, un­
chastening ways; publics that can comprehend their own differences �f
privilege and struggle; publics whose abstract spaces can also be livedin,
remembered, hoped for. By publics we do not mean populations of self­
identified queers. Nor is the name queer an umbrella for gays, lesbians, bi­
sexuals, and the transgendered. Queer publics make available different
understandings of membership at different times; arid membership iii them
· is more a matter of aspiration than it is the expression of an identity or a his­
�··
tory. Through a wide range of mongrelized genres and media, queer com�
.

mentary allows a lot of unpredictability in the culture it brings into being...

Queer commentary takes on varie�hapes, risks, ambitions, and.ambiva­
·lences in various contexts. The word queeritself can be a precious source of
titillation at a conference; part of ordinary, bland patter in a nightclub; unin­
telligible noise in the official policy public; a crashing faux pas at a dinner
party; or a reminder of half-deadened optimism at a rally. The danger of the
lab�l queer theory is that itmakes.its queer and nonqueer audiences forget
these differences and imagine a context (theory).in which .queer has a stable
referential content and pragmatic force. The panicky defensiveness that
many queer and non-queer-identified humanists express has to do with fP.e
. . . . . . . . ' .·· ·.;.
.
 Guest Column 345

multiple localities of que�r theory and practice. Separately, these localities

often seem paiochia.J., or simply locru�like little ornaments appliquect over.
real politics or real intellectual work. They carry the odor of the luxuriant
And one corpus of work (often Eve Sedgwick's or Judith Butler's) is com­
monly made a metonym for queer theory or queer culture building itself, ex­
emplary either for good or for bad. But no particular project is metonymic of
queer commentary. Part of the point of using the word queer in the first place
was the wrenching sense of recontextualization it gave, and queer commen­
tary has tried hard to sustain awareness of diverse context boundaries.
For example, queer critics have incited a broad rethinking in cultural
studies of the 'relation between the officirupolicy public and the media pub­
lic sphere. It is no accident that queer commentary-on mass media, on
texts .of all kinds, on discourse environments from science to camp-has
emerged at a time when United States culture increasingly fetishizes the
normaL A fantasized mainstream has been invested with normative force
·by leaders.ofboth major politicaLparties. The nationrulesbian and gay or­
ganizations have decidedto float with the current, arguing that lesbians and
gays should be seen just as people next door, well within a mainstream
whose highest aspirations are marriage, m1litary patriotism, and protected
domesticity. At.both national and local levels, lesbians and gays can some­
times enter visibility in the official public sphere. But the idea that queer­
ness can be anything .other than a pathology or an evil, let alone a good,
cannot even be entertained yetin most public contexts.
AIDS a:ctivismforced the issue of translating queerness into the nationru
·scene; AIDS made those of us who confronted it reruize the deadly stakes
ofdisctmrse; it made us realizethe public and private unvoiceability of
so much that mattered, about anger, mourning, and desire; it made us real­
ize that different frames of reference-science, news, religion, ordinary ho­
mophobia-compete and that.their disjunction is lethaL AIDS also taught
us not to assume a social environment of community and of support for le­
gitimate politics. Far from preexisting as sources of activism and critical
commentary, communities of support had to be created by a public labor.
· AIDS ruso showed that rhetorics of expertise limit the circulation of knowl­
.. edge, ultimately authorizing the technocratiC administration of peoples'
:·· · .,
·< lives; Finally, in· a way that directly affects critics of polite letters, AIDS
taught us the need to be disconcertingly explicit about such things as moriey
.; . ·and sexual practices, for as long as euphemism imd indirection produce
harm and privilege. .
The labor ofbringing sexurupractices and desfres to articulacy has tended
togo along with a labor of ambiguating categories of identity: Just as AIDS
. , . . activists were defined rriore by a concern for practice and for risk than by
identity, so queer commentary has refused to draw boundaries around its
constituency. And withoutforgetting the irnportante of the hetero-homo dis­
tinction Of object choice in modern culture, queer work wants to address the
. fullrange.ofpower-ridden normativities of sex. This endeavor has animated
' a rethinking of both: the perverse and the norma.J.: the romantic couple, sex
346 Guest Column

for money, reproduction, the genres of life narra�ve. Queer commentary in

this sense is not necessarily superior to or more inclusive than conventional
lesbian and gay studies; the two have overlapping but different aims and
therefore potentially different publics.
There are, of course; many intermediate contexts between the Congres­
sional Record and queer studies conferences or "zine" culture. There are
even components of the national mass media, such as· Details and MTV,
that have cultivated a language of queerness in their highly capitalized fo­
rums. Mostly in youth culture, these forums allow people to be and to talk
queer without assimilating queerness to a familiar minority identity like
gay. They are reminders that the publics in which queerness becomes artic­
ulate are not just made up of queers; most of these publics, in their intemai
. ·'principles and material conditions, are oriented to other ends. In mass youth
culture, for example, the process of making queerness imaginable exhibits
the ordinary contradictions of capital: the need to acquire one's individual­
ity from a genericizing exchange and to produce one's individuality through
acts of consumption that are only indifectly conceived as social.
Given such conditions, the rhetoric of queering identity in mass youth
culture can seem like a· luxury. There are those who dismiss the rhetoric as
consumerist and then triviilize all queer issues as ·matters of "lifestyle." But
.· even if that perception were true, is lifestyle really unconnected to violence
and world transformation? Politics so often tuins on competing standards of
seriousness· that any. narrow understanding of violence, nee<!, arid interest
should be resisted. Queer culture comes into being unevenly, in obliquely
·.cross-referencing publics, and ho o11e scene of importance accounts for its
politics-neither hyperabstracted contexts, like "the Symbolic," nor hyper­
concrete ones, like civil disobedience.
When we talk about queer theory in PMIA, we mean to keep in mind the
special character of this discourse context. Academic citation creates its
own virtual wodd. In the 1990s, that world has allowed queer talk to be
taken seriously. But it WO!lld be wrong to take this provisional seriousness
for a·fully inhabitable world or to suppose that queer theory has become
·

· dominant in any general sphere of endeavor.

It is.not.unusual for citation to create virtual worlds. Members of Con­
:·,· gress routinely refer to the telegrams in their offices as "the American peo­
ple." The official and ;ri:J.ass�media publics produce, by citation, virtual
worlds ofgreat potenc;y. �ilce the academic public, these are spaces that no­
body Jives in. The burden of translating on�self from one 9f th�m into an­
other falls.unequally, often violently, on different people; while this burden
might produce political rage, the incommensurability of these publics is
usually experienced as cogp.itive dissonance or amnesia-which is to say;
hardly experienced except as nameless unhappiness.
· No wonder we hear the worry that queer studies promotes both danger­
ous and silly objects of analysis. Much queer commentary has been o� the
. • ' political environments of sexuality; it sees intimate sex practices. and affects
as related not just to family, ro'mance, or friendship but also to the public
 Guest Column 347

world. governing both policy and everyday life. W hile to many these
spheres are separate, in queer thinking they are one subject. Queer com­
mentary has tried to challenge some major conditions of privacy, so that
shame and the closet would be understood· no longer as isolation chambers
butas the architecture of common culture, so that vernacular performances
would no longer stammer with the ineloquence of tacit codes, bart<ly self-
. acknowledged, and·so that questions of propriety and explicitness would no
longer be burdened by the invisible normativity of heterosexual culture.
Amalgamating politics and feeling in a way that requires constant syncretic
gestures and movements, queer commentary has tried to drive into visibility
both the cultural production of sexuality and the social context of feeling.
We: acknowledge that a lot of work in queer studies has no explicit in­
terest in making publics. Many critics equate the erotic and the political,
arguing that power is absorbed into the subject through the Symbolic order.
Queerness becomes.a question of identification. Much work in queer stud­
ies equates cultural politics with politics itself, bracketing or deferring .
the question of how oppressions and sublimations around sex and sexual­
ity meet up with. other kinds of violence and oppression-with exploita­
tion, racial formation, the production of feminine subjectivity or of national
culture: We suggest that. what brings these different kinds of criticism
together as queer theory is a desire to create new contexts, and not just
professional ones .in which cool work can be performed. Criticism need
not have a certain kind of political content to shiue the aim of making
the world queerer. Making these· linkages theoretically and politically
is difficult. And many of the projects that are driven by queer aspirations
may look partial; seen collectively,.they are part of a broader and longer­
term set of transformations.
If queer commentary were expected eitherto master or to adjudicate "the
politics" ofa developing critical culture, it would.be condemned to the fail­
ure of mere theory or to the resentfulness of a critique that could not use­
fully be heard. One of the stresses on queer intellectuals in the academy is
that there are few queer intellectual publics outside it Like the mainstream
.. :straight press,. the• organs of the national gay press-in particular, the Advo­
' cate, Out, Deneuve; Ten Percent+-have been either oblivious or hostile to
queer theory. (Exceptions to this ti"end'are On Our Backs and Girlfriends.)
And even.inside'the academy, questions about queer theory's political util- .
. ity are occasionally not in the best faith. Sometimes they serve to ward off
theory from a model of gay studies.that has a more affirmative relation to its
·imagined constituency. In this context, queer commentary provides exactly
what some fear it will:.perspectives and archives to challenge the comforts

I
of privilege and unself-consciousness.
.
Sometimes, though, the •questions of political utility arise from a real
sense of political need. We have been .asked, for example, "What does ·queer

I
theory teach us about twelve-step programs?" "the power of new markets?"
. . "spirituality?"

I
What does queer theory teach us about x?

l
.n
,,
; I

' \\
I
j" \
348 Guest Column

When a new thing emerges, people want to know how it is going to solve
problems. When it is called theory, itis expected to produce a program, and
when the theory addresses the broad issue of queerness, the program is ex�
pected to explain queer life. But queer theory has not yet undertaken the kind
of general description of the world that would allow it to produce practical
solutions. People want to know what costs, risks, and tactics are involved in
getting from this order of things to a better one. Asked for these reasons, the
question ofx i� both a.challenge and a hope. And it is a hard question.
The question of x might be more ordinary in disciplines that have long
histories ofaffiliation with the state. Sociology, psychology, anthropology,
and political science, for example, have earned much of their funding and
expert authority by encouraging questions of utility. Queer theory has flour­
ished in the disciplines. where expert service to the state has been least fa­
miliar arid where. theory has consequently meant unsettlement rather than
systematization.. This failure to systematize the world in queer theory does
not mean a commitment to irrelevance; it means resistance to being an ap­
paratus for falsely translating systematic and random violences into normal
.states, adrniriistrative problems, or minor constituencies.
Sometimes the question of what queer theory teaches us about x is not
about politics in the usual .sense but about personal survival. Like feminist,
AfricimAmerican,Latina/Latino, and other minority projects, queer work
strikes its readers as knowledge central to living. This demand puts tremen­
dous pressure on emerging work, pressure that makes the work simulta­
neously conventional and unprecedented in the humanities and social
sciences�traditional insofar as pedagogy has long involved the formation
of identities and �ubjectivities, radical in the aspiration to live another way
now, here.
·What does queer theory.teach.us about x? As difficult as it would be to
spell out programmatic content for an answer, this simple question still has
the power to wrench frames.

What does queer commentary ·teach us about literature or about the L in

PMLA? How do literary engagements participate in queer world building?
·
·
This question is notfrequently posed, for fear that the answer would be,
,; ·, ·'\,� ·-\ .Nothing.�·;: .= ......

. Queer commentary has involved a certain amount of experimenting, of

prancing and squatting on the academic stage. This is partly to remind peo­
ple that there is an academic stage and that its protocols and proprieties have
maintained an invisible heteronormativity, one that infiltrates our profession,
our knowledge, and this editorial. This does not mean we embrace, or dis-
. avow, the indecorous per se. fudecorum can be a way of bringing some dig­
nity. to the abject. But it is also a way of changing the public for academic
woFk, of keeping the door ajar;
In our view, the question of culture building should be the baseline issue
for humanists. On this point we might agree with traditionalists who believe
that the humanities should not be limited by the present. Historical con-
 Guest Column 349

sciousness and a resistance to presentism can be indispensable to a critical

cult:ure. But unlike some varieties of traditionalism, queer commentary re­
fuses to subordinate emergent cultures to whatever happens to pass for
common culture. We want to promote the building not of culture in general
but Of a;culture Wh()Se marginal history make� it inevitaply COntroverted,
even wheh it involves authors and themes of the greatest canonical prestige.
Many of the critics of queer theory would .like to dismiss it as merely partic­
ular, the infection of general culture by narrow interest� But the relation be­
tween the general and the particular is exactly what is at issue. Queer
commentary shows that much of what passes fot general culture is riddled
with heteronormativity. Conversely, many of the issues of queerness have
more general relevance than one is normally encouraged to think.
This is true not only of explicitly general notions of subjectivity-such as
the unconscious, abjection, embodiment, knowledge, and performativity­
and not only of the prestigio�!l author§ who have been so brilliantly queered
but also of a range of specificallyliterary issues. Queer commentary has
produced rich analyses of these ateas: cultures of reception; the relatio� of·
the explicit and the implicit, or the acknowledged and the disavowed; the
use and abuse of biography for life;· the costs of closure and the pleasure of
'unruly subplots; vernacular idioms and private knowledge; voicing strate­
gies; gosSip; elision and euphemism; jokes; identifi�ation and other readerly
relations to texts and discourse. Queer commentary has also distinguished
itselfthrough experiments in critical voice and in the genre ofthe critical
essay. Along with queer experiments in pedagogy and classroom practice, it
marks a transformation ofboth the object and the practice of criticism.
Of coiitse, we have deferred asking the crucial question: what does queer
· · theory teach us about sex?